UOLTT Policy Gathering
UOLTT Policy Gathering
If posting isn't possible here, I apologize. May I submit a suggestion and ask two questions? (This is the initial one)
1. What are the new sections?
2. Suggestion: Restrict consecutive statements from a Councillor or High-Councillor to two, as a way to avoid elected dictatorships.
Given that the High Council cannot be chosen and holds absolute veto authority, it seems the situation is over. The HC's veto ability combined with the power-sharing between sections won't lead to dictatorship. Capping terms will merely prevent successful individuals from maintaining their positions.
The organization will be divided into three parts: Military, Logistics and Expansion. The titles are still under discussion, but their functions are largely defined. Regarding dictatorship... we remain mostly unified in practice, since the High Council holds ultimate authority with complete veto rights over the elected council's choices. They are expected to step in as a backup, using these powers only when the elected body makes decisions that harm the organization's interests. Even then, it is significantly less authoritarian than most MMO communities. Members can vote to elect new leaders who will shape the group’s direction and adjust them if needed. This level of participation is rare in most MMOs. Additionally, unlike real life, games allow you to change dictatorships or set up your own with a simple click if you’re dissatisfied.
In the High Council view, most companies act like dictators... I’d rather imagine concentrating too much authority in a single person within the HC, kind of like Palpatine—or that character who messed up Chaplin’s mustache. The idea of term limits mainly applies to the elected council, just for the same reason.
This situation is quite surprising. The person who damaged Chaplin's mustache was chosen through democratic means, as were Palpatine. Both events seem linked by a clause allowing emergency powers to dismantle existing systems. We have no evidence this could occur. First, there will be nine council members with equal influence on decisions. Second, anyone who acts improperly can be dismissed by the HC. The HC exists and is responsible for organizing this movement, which explains its widespread support. If they shift toward darkness, we might simply walk away. Yet, how can they truly control us in this digital game? You can't harm a virtual character's life, deny him food, or conceal information from him. Perhaps it's just taxes...
Yeah, I get that point. Executing someone in a game isn't really possible... But hey, I'm just being casual... Also, it's smart to cap HC's abilities, just in case things go too far. Not saying I don't trust our leaders, but I prefer avoiding situations I've seen with established groups back in my EVE days.
Another perspective to think about is that elections in such regimes are always designed to favor the current ruler. Personally, I’m fine with someone being chosen through democratic means repeatedly, as long as it reflects the public’s desire. The real concern would be if tactics like vote buying or manipulation become common, and I’d be the first to oppose them and simply walk away if necessary.
Lobbying and misleading tactics may persist regardless of how strictly the system is enforced, so I’m focusing on initial safeguards embedded in the core Articles of Association—the foundational charter that establishes a company.